RULES OF PROCEDURE: The Secretariat introduced the draft rules of
procedure and annotated draft rules of procedure (IT/GB/06/3 and Add.1).
Delegates discussed and eventually agreed to base deliberations on the
original draft rules with inserted changes arising from the annotated
text. Canada for NORTH AMERICA proposed that the rules should also apply
to the Governing Body’s subsidiary bodies, but delegates decided against
it.

Delegates agreed to language regarding: convening special sessions of
the Governing Body at the request of a party within a fixed time period
after having received support of one third of the parties, the length of
which remains to be decided; requiring the majority of parties as the
quorum for Governing Body sessions; and providing the agenda and
notifying observers twelve, rather than eight, weeks before a Governing
Body session. Delegates rejected text on communicating representatives’
names, in so far as possible, 15 days before a Governing Body session.

On
decision making, the UK for EUROPE and Zambia for AFRICA supported
making decisions on procedural matters by simple majority and on
substantive issues by a two-thirds majority as a last resort when
consensus cannot be achieved. Panama for GRULAC, Australia for the
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, Indonesia for ASIA, and NORTH AMERICA opposed this
suggestion, calling for consensus-based decision making in accordance
with the Treaty. WG-I Chair Harvey called for informal consultations on
the issue.

NORTH
AMERICA, the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC and EUROPE, opposed by AFRICA, GRULAC and
YEMEN, proposed deleting text on using the core budget for developing
country representatives’ and independent experts’ participation in the
meetings of the Governing Body and its subsidiary bodies.

Among
other things, delegates agreed to delete a rule stating that amendments
to the rules of procedure may only be proposed by one quarter of
parties, and to retain a rule confirming the overriding authority of the
Treaty over the Governing Body rules of procedure.

MTA:
MTAContact Group Chair Godfrey Mwila (Zambia) reported on
the group’s progress in addressing the draft standard MTA on Tuesday,
and on three smaller groups that met on Wednesday morning to discuss,
respectively: new preambular text, applicable law and dispute
settlement; definition of “product;” and linkages between MTA parties
and ITPGR parties, third party beneficiary rights, and benefit-sharing
and intellectual property rights. Mwila indicated that defining
“product” was an important outstanding issue, welcoming participants’
efforts to harmonize broad and narrow definitions, and noting that
agreement on this definition would lead to resolution of issues related
to benefit-sharing payments.

COMPLIANCE: The Secretariat introduced a document on draft
procedures and operational mechanisms to promote compliance and address
issues of non-compliance (IT/GB-1/06/7). The SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, EUROPE
and AFRICA called for supportive measures, with the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC
cautioning that the compliance mechanisms should not duplicate the
Treaty dispute settlement. EUROPE proposed that compliance mechanisms be
non-adversarial, non-judicial, cooperative, transparent, and
forward-looking; and CANADA proposed that they be adapted to specific
Treaty concerns.

EUROPE, AFRICA and CANADA supported the establishment of a compliance
committee, whereas the US said this would be premature, instead urging
parties to mandate the Governing Body to address compliance issues. ASIA
called for mechanisms reflecting Treaty provisions on farmers’ rights
and the Multilateral System. JAPAN said compliance should not undermine
party national sovereignty. Delegates agreed that procedures and
measures include monitoring, and offering assistance and advice,
including legal advice, when needed, in particular to developing
countries and economies in transition. CUBA suggested that assistance
should be offered when needed “and requested,” which remained bracketed.

The
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, opposed by SWITZERLAND and others, proposed that
compliance procedures and mechanisms be non-legally binding. Delegates
also debated whether the operation of compliance mechanisms should take
into account an adequate balance between developed and developing
countries.

Delegates discussed whether to base the composition of the compliance
committee on FAO or UN regions. The SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, CANADA and
BRAZIL, opposed by EUROPE and YEMEN, requested deletion of a reference
to committee members “serving in their personal capacity,” with CANADA
proposing that they “shall act objectively and in the best interest of
the Treaty.” CANADA, the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, EUROPE, AFRICA, INDIA and
BRAZIL proposed that the committee meet on a needs basis, suggesting
different modes of linking its meetings to those of the Governing Body.
YEMEN proposed that the committee meet “once a year, unless it decides
otherwise.” EUROPE proposed that the committee’s rules of procedure
include rules on confidentiality, conflict of interest and electronic
decision making.

On the
compliance committee’s functions, delegates discussed whether to: refer
to “issues” rather than “cases” of non-compliance; take into account
only information submitted by parties or also information submitted by
other entities; mandate the committee to take “measures,” “actions” or
make “recommendations;” and limit the committee’s monitoring function.
EUROPE suggested that the committee report to the Governing Body on
closed issues of non-compliance, while the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC expressed
concern about breaking the confidentiality of the committee’s
proceedings.

On
procedures, the SOUTHWEST PACIFIC suggested that the committee only
receive submissions from parties with respect to themselves, whereas
EUROPE preferred that parties also submit information on other parties,
and YEMEN proposed that the Governing Body should also submit
information.

WORKING GROUP II

FUNDING STRATEGY:
Continuing negotiations on the funding strategy, the EU, opposed by
BRAZIL, proposed new text emphasizing specific assistance for the
conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in
developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
Delegates decided to delete a paragraph on the target for funding.

Regarding resources under the Governing Body’s direct
control, CANADA and AUSTRALIA argued against the establishment of a
technical committee, concerned about funding implications.
Alternatively, the EU, opposed by CANADA, suggested that the work be
conducted by the Governing Body with assistance from an advisory
committee and external experts. The EU also argued against text stating
that the permanent technical committee will report on disbursements at
each session of the Governing Body, noting that the Governing Body
should be responsible for this matter.

On resources outside the Governing Bodyï¿½s direct control,
AUSTRALIA suggested that developed countries ï¿½mayï¿½ provide financial
resources. The EU, supported by UGANDA and opposed by GRULAC and INDIA,
proposed that such funds can be used for non-Annex I crops. Delegates
agreed to keep a reference to funds provided through bilateral, regional
and multilateral channels.

On monitoring, the EU suggested that the Secretariat
compile and post all submitted information online. Many delegates
supported reviewing the funding strategy at every second session of the
Governing Body. The EU added language allowing for possible further
development of annexes to the funding strategy, and requested deletion
of provisional annexes on a strategy for promoting voluntary
contributions and targets for funding.

In the evening, following informal consultations at
lunchtime, WG-II agreed to delete text on the advisory committee
reporting on disbursement of funds. On resources under the Governing
Body's direct control, delegates agreed to delete language on voluntary
contributions to the funding strategy from a broad range of sources.
Delegates compromised on a paragraph on the monitoring role of the
Governing Body over the implementation of the funding strategy. They
also agreed to text on the frequency with which the Governing Body will
review the funding strategy, being once every second regular session or
whenever necessary. Discussions continued into the night.

APPOINTMENT OF THE
SECRETARY: The Secretariat introduced the relevant document
(IT/GB-1/06/11), calling for comments on the appendix containing the
Secretaryï¿½s draft terms of reference. EUROPE argued that the Secretaryï¿½s
independence may be compromised if he is required ï¿½to perform such other
related duties that the Director-General may assign,ï¿½ instead proposing
that the Secretary perform ï¿½ad hoc related duties that the
Director-General may from time to time assign.ï¿½

On the question of desirable qualities, GRULAC argued
that the Secretary should have conservation experience. Delegates
decided to address the term and rotation of the Secretaryï¿½s mandate at a
later stage.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE: The Secretariat introduced the document on the possible
establishment of a permanent technical advisory committee
(IT/GB-1/06/8). EUROPE, AUSTRALIA and CANADA opposed the establishment
of a permanent committee, raised the possibility of a future
non-permanent committee, and called for revisiting the issue during the
Governing Bodyï¿½s second session. AFRICA, INDIA, MALAYSIA and GRULAC
demanded the immediate establishment of a permanent committee, with
AFRICA and INDIA preferring an independent committee rather than one
linked to the CGRFA.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
TRUST: Amb. Fernando Gerbasi, the Trust Chair, introduced a
draft relationship agreement between the Governing Body and the Trust
(IT/GB-1/06/14).

On dispute settlement, the EU suggested referring
disputes to an existing mechanism rather than creating a new one. On the
procedures for appointing members of the Trust Executive Board, the EU,
CANADA and BRAZIL called for regional balance, with INDIA adding that
ï¿½biodiversity-endowedï¿½ areas be adequately represented. BRAZIL called
for consultations with governments in the appointment process, and
SWITZERLAND for an effective, transparent and participatory method for
candidate selection.

MTA CONTACT GROUP

In an evening contact group session, delegates agreed,
among other things, to: references to the right of the third party
beneficiary to initiate dispute settlement, and to request appropriate
information, to be made available by both the provider and the
recipient, including samples of material, as necessary, regarding their
obligations in the context of the MTA. They decided to delete a
preambular reference to the rights and obligations of parties.

Delegates did not agree to, inter alia: a
reference subjecting MTA parties to the provisions of the Treaty; text
stating that applicable law shall include decisions of the Governing
Body; the definition of "product;" and a reference stating that
transfers of PGRFA under development do not constitute commercialization
that would trigger benefit-sharing obligations. Discussions continued
into the night.

IN THE CORRIDORS

With the Spanish soccer team tackling its first World Cup game and being
more successful in its task than the MTA contract group, at least some
ï¿½localï¿½ delegates sported big smiles on their faces. Many others,
however, could not ignore the cloud looming over MTA negotiations on
Wednesday, with some even fearing a ï¿½collapseï¿½ due to the apparent
divergence among regionsï¿½ positions. Some attributed the slow progress
of the MTA negotiations to a regional groupï¿½s negotiating strategy of
making the adoption of the MTA contingent upon that of the funding
strategy. With deliberations on the funding strategy taking some steps
forward, some delegates are still hopeful that the Governing Body will
score on the MTA before Fridayï¿½s final whistle.

This
issue of the

Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
ï¿½ <enb@iisd.org>
is written and edited by
Radoslav Dimitrov, Ph.D.,
Reem Hajjar, Harry Jonas,
Stefan Jungcurt, and Elisa
Morgera. The Digital Editor
is Anders Gonï¿½alves da
Silva. The Editor is Pamela
S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>
and the Director of IISD
Reporting Services is
Langston James "Kimo" Goree
VI <kimo@iisd.org>.
The Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the
European Commission (DG-ENV)
and the Italian Ministry for
the Environment and
Territory General
Directorate for Nature
Protection. General Support
for the Bulletin
during 2006 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
the Austrian Federal
Ministry for the
Environment, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, SWAN
International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment
(through the Institute for
Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES) and the
Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global
Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
into French has been
provided by the
International Organization
of the Francophonie (IOF)
and the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. Funding for
the translation of the
Earth Negotiations
Bulletin
into Spanish has been
provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The
opinions expressed in the
Earth Negotiations
Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations
Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>,
+1-646-536-7556 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA. The ENB Team at
the First Session of the
Governing Body of the ITPGR
can be contacted by e-mail
at <elisa@iisd.org>.